109
ŠTÚDIE / ARTICLES
MIROSLAV KOTÁSEK
How many dea hs? Au o-bio-g aphy as dea h-w i ing
DOI: 10.31577/WLS.2024.16.1.8
© Ins i u e o Wo ld Li e a u e
Slo ak Academy o Sciences
© Mi osla Ko ásek 2024
Licensed unde CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
ŠTÚDIE / ARTICLES
Wo ld Li e a u e S udies 1  ol. 16  2024 (109 – 119)
Mi osla Ko ásek
Depa men o Czech Li e a u e
Facul y o A s
Masa yk Uni e si y
B no
Czech Republic
ko [email protected]
ORCID: 0000-0002-0784-3153
How many dea hs? Au o-bio-g aphy as dea h-w i ing
Au obiog aphy. Dea h. Jacques De ida. Media. Spec ali y.
This a icle conce ns a ious aspec s o au obiog aphy as hey ha e been in o-
duced by Jacques De ida, who himsel used he e m “au obiog aphical” o e e
o his philosophical w i ing. Unlike mos schola s who s ess he link be ween
au obiog aphy and philosophy in De ida’s w i ing he a icle a emp s o link i
p ima ily o he “li e a y”. In his endea ou , mos a en ion is paid o he nume -
ous me amo phoses in which “dea h” s uc u es and haun s (au o)biog aphies
and ou hinking abou he gen e. He e, he g ea es in luence, apa om De -
ida, was Mau ice Blancho . “Dea h” and nega i i y igu e a many le els o au o-
biog aphy, whe e, unlike in a ic ional na a i e, hey canno be suspended easily:
hey can be ound in he ques ion abou he e y usage o language and i s ela ion
o he au obiog aphe , in he cons uc ion o he “I”, and in he medial si ua ion
o he li e a y. The a icle concludes by sugges ing a po en ial ans o ma ion
o he au obiog aphical p ac ice b ough abou by echno-cul u al changes and
de elopmen s ega ding bo h he “a chi e” and “media”, which a e ans o ming
he s a us o memo y, legacy, and he pas .
Depa men o Fo eign Languages
Facul y o Elec ical Enginee ing
and Communica ion
B no Uni e si y o Technology
Czech Republic
[email p o ec ed]
110 MIROSLAV KOTÁSEK
[…] we a e held, o e e , be ween li e and dea h,
inas a e o non-exis ence and non-dea h, om
which ou whole li e pe haps akes i s meaning
and i s eali y.
Mau ice Blancho ([1947] 1995a, 252)
I emembe . I hink. I w i e. I w i e o emembe . Iw i e o( e)in en some los o
non-exis ing memo ies. AsI emembe , as Iin en my memo ies, I hink. The e o e
Iam. The e o e Idie. Ibecome amemo y.
Th ough hese (mainly linguis ic) ac s which a e anindispensable pa o e e y au-
obiog aphy, Iam going oou line hedis inc i eness o ace ain ou look on his ype
o w i ing (na a i e) ac ha was mos impo an ly inspi ed by hewo k o Jacques
De ida. Theopening sen ences should indica e, among o he hings, ha wha is
ques ioned bylooking a au obiog aphy om his poin o  iew is he e y possi-
bili y o subsuming au obiog aphy unde heca ego y o a“li e a y gen e”, while si-
mul aneously ques ioning heca ego ies bo h o “li e a u e” and “gen e”. “Li e a u e”
ge s p oblema ized inau obiog aphy bymaking i impossible osuspend he ension
be ween “ ic ion” and “ eali y” (“na a i e” and “wha eally happened”), no e en
in heac o  eading. Theon ology o au obiog aphy is uns able, osay heleas . The e
a e ob iously di e en p ima y impulses ha ins iga e heau obiog aphical na a i e
ac , which a e de ined by hei ela ion owa ds language ingene al and hep e-ex-
is ing “biog aphy” ma e ial. A  hesame ime hey p e-de ine hena a i e p oce-
du es used in hew i ing ac i sel : ona a e anau obiog aphy Ican use exclusi ely
hose pa icula e en s I emembe , because Ijus passi ely desc ibe wha Iknow
(assume oknow) has al eady happened; he e can be anexcess o in o ma ion and
Iwan ochoose only he ele an ones, hus gi ing my pe sonal a chi e adis inc
s uc u e; o Ican be pu ing oge he hena a i e because Ido no know wha hap-
pened, so Ineed o ab ica e amemo y o“make sense” o  hepas (and hep esen )
– he e is alack o in o ma ion and/o unde s anding and hena a i e is supposed
o ill hese lacunae. Thein en io (na a i e in en ion) o  he“I” ( he ealm o “au o”
inau o-bio-g aphy) is a  hesame ime hein en io o  heo he ( he ex ). Thebody
o  he ex is co-ex ensi e wi h hebody o  heau obiog aphe ; he ab ic o  heau o-
biog aphe ’s “I”is co-ex ensi e wi h he ab ic o  hena a i e. As o “gen e”, heun-
ce ain y abou genealogy (Who amI? Whe e do Icome om?) no only e ymolog-
ically, bu also p ac ically comp omises genology (Am Iusing heau obiog aphical
gen e? Am Iusing i jus ly?).
Unlike Robe Smi h (1995), who concen a es onDe ida dealing wi h and com-
men ing on“philosophical” au obiog aphies, Iam in e es ed mo e in he ela ionship
o au obiog aphical w i ing wi h he“li e a y”. I is inmany ways adelica e and dan-
ge ous liaison – au obiog aphical w i ing is capable o  es ing hemu ual in e ela-
ions o li e a u e, ic ion, u h, na a i e, and Sel . AsDe ida sugges s, o his lim-
inal sphe e he e m “au obiog aphy” is “pe haps heleas inadequa e name” (De ida
is e e ing he e ohis w i ing occupying hespace somewhe e be ween philosophy
and li e a u e) “because i  emains o me hemos enigma ic, hemos open” (De -
ida and A idge 1992, 34). “Philosophy” he e is no obe unde s ood p ima ily
111
How many dea hs? Au o-bio-g aphy as dea h-w i ing
as heacademic ield o “his o y o philosophy”, bu ini s ela ion o“au o-bio-g a-
phy” i mani es s i sel speci ically as he“a ” oli e and die p ope ly: “Lea ning
oli e should mean lea ning odie […]. Tha ’s been heold philosophical injunc ion
since Pla o: ophilosophize is olea n odie” (De ida [2005] 2007a, 24). Ip opose
his “p oblem o li e and dea h” ( he ealm o “bio” inau o-bio-g aphy) obe cen al
oau obiog aphy as well.
He e he s a egic posi ion o au obiog aphy in ela ion o li e a u e can
beglimpsed, as i he e y g ounds o li e a y heo y come obe dispu ed and laid ba e
byau obiog aphy. One eason migh be ha au obiog aphy does no le he eade
o ge “s a egically” abou heau ho and w i e o anau obiog aphical ex ( oa oid
heli e a y- heo e ical he esy o psychologizing in e p e a ion), bu on hecon a y
highligh s heposi ion o  hew i e and hesi ua ion o w i ing (na a ing), includ-
ing hepsychological, cogni i e, sociological, o unconscious se up o  hew i e as
hep i ileged s a ing poin o any in e p e a ion. Consequen ly, heques ion abou
hes a us o  hew i ing subjec appea s undamen al since au obiog aphy is capa-
ble o  e ealing hep eca iousness o  his posi ion as i always al eady inds i sel
in he ension be ween he( ue) li e-s o y (li e ingene al) as opposed o“ ic ion” (o
phan asm) o wha is obe o mula ed bylinguis ic means. Th ough heac o w i ing
( he ealm o “g aph” inau o-bio-g aphy) ha ension is supplemen ed by hein e -
dependence o  hew i ing subjec and he esul ing ex ( hewo k). Tha is heway
Iunde s and heinsigh o Paul de Man:
The specula momen ha is pa o all unde s anding e eals he opological s uc u e
ha unde lies all cogni ions, including knowledge o sel . Thein e es o au obiog aphy,
hen, is no ha i  e eals eliable sel -knowledge – i does no – bu ha i demons a es
ins iking way heimpossibili y o closu e and o  o aliza ion ( ha is heimpossibili y
o coming in o being) o all ex ual sys ems made up o  opological subs i u ions. (1979,
922)
E en hough I end o ag ee wi h de Man, i has obe poin ed ou ha especially
au obiog aphical w i ing p ac ice (bu hesubsequen eading ac s as well) is subjec
o hepsychic, exis en ial, and ma e ial (biological) economy o human li e, which
means ha no all sel -knowledge has obe opological: cogni ion migh be unde -
lain by opology bu his opology s ems om and inhabi s hema e ial co po eal
being. Meaning is opological and embodied a  hesame ime. Thepsychic economy
can also po en ially suspend hedis inc ion be ween an asy and eali y ( ic ion and
knowledge), which become indis inguishable, depending on heac ion o  hepsy-
chic appa a us (Sigmund F eud s esses ha i is no hegoal o psychoanaly ic p ac-
ice o ein oduce hedis inc ion; see [1916] 1924, 382–383).
In ying o answe he ques ion o he ela ionship be ween w i e and wo k (al-
bei inmo e gene al e ms, no limi ed by“au obiog aphy”), Mau ice Blancho iews
i as one ha is buil upon aspeci ic nega i i y (Blancho is making epea ed e e -
ences oHegel): “be o e his wo k exis s, no only does he [ hew i e ] no know who
heis, bu heis no hing. Heexis s only as a unc ion o  hewo k” ([1948] 1995b,
303). Acco ding oBlancho he“w i e ” acqui es his/he s a us only h ough w i ing
he ex . Upon inishing hewo k, he/she as aw i e ceases oexis . Thesugges -
112 MIROSLAV KOTÁSEK
ed dependence o  heau ho ial being upon hew i ing p ocess is close o heou -
look onau obiog aphy Iam p oposing. Bu au obiog aphical wo k no only lea es
hew i e dead behind, i also allows him/he o“li e on” o “su i e”. O cou se,
inau obiog aphy i is no so much hep oblem o “w i e ” and “wo k”, bu o  he“I”
and “myli e s o y”. Ye , as au obiog aphical w i ing ne e le s me (bo h as eade
and au obiog aphe ) o ge abou his subs an ial link, unlike ic ional li e a u e,
“ hebiog aphical, inso a as i is au obiog aphical, cu s ac oss bo h ields inques ion:
hebody o  hewo k and hebody o  he eal subjec . Thebiog aphical is hus ha
in e nal bo de o wo k and li e, abo de onwhich ex s a e engende ed. Thes a us
o  he ex – i i has one – is such ha i de i es om nei he heone no heo he ,
om nei he heinside no heou side” (Gasché [1982] 1985, 41). (Au o)biog aphi-
cal ex hen decons uc s heinside–ou side/subjec –objec dicho omies as i cons i-
u es hew i e who is simul aneously p oducing he ex .
The ine i abili y o “dea h” (in he o m o a“na u al law” posing alimi o“li e”
and any “li e-s o y”) posi ions heau obiog aphical endea ou , which “isno obe
inany way con used wi h heso-called li e o  heau ho , wi h heco pus o empi -
ical acciden s making up heli e o anempi ically eal pe son” (41) wi hin aho i-
zon ha , pa adoxically, can ne e acqui e hes a us o ap ope “ho izon”, being
a  hesame ime ine i able and inaccessible, ollowing hesame decons uc i e log-
ic Gasché inds in heinside – ou side dicho omy. I au obiog aphy na a es ali e
s o y, hen e en be o e Ibegin ow i e, dea h lu ks in hedis ance, because “ oli e,
byde ini ion, is no some hing one lea ns. No om onesel , i is no lea ned om
li e, augh byli e. Only om heo he and bydea h. Inany case om heo he
a  heedge o li e. A  hein e nal bo de o heex e nal bo de , i is ahe e odi-
dac ics be ween li e and dea h” (De ida [1993] 2006, x ii). Inanau obiog aphy,
mo e impo an ly, his he e ology p oblema izes hes a us o  he“I” and he“o h-
e ”, because au obiog aphical w i ing is buil upon anin e nalized ans o ma ion
o  he“I” in o he“o he ”: heobjec obe desc ibed, unde s ood, analyzed, and
emembe ed. Hence, hehe e ological si ua ion o au obiog aphy makes unsu e no
only hedi ision be ween ic ion and eali y, inside and ou side, bu also be ween
heau ho ial con ol and ha which can becalled “mysel ”, poin ing ou hena a-
i e p ocedu es p esen in hecons uc ion o  he“I” and hei in insically p ob-
lema ic na u e.
Re u ning o Gasché’s ema k on he body o  he ex and hebody o  hew i e
and hei ela ionship o(au o)biog aphy, some hing needs obe added. Wewill
eadily accep heaxiom o claim ha e e y human (and animal) li e is singula , de-
spi e i s seemingly uni e sal g ounding in hebiological ha isinsc ibed in he“uni-
e sal” language o DNA code. This common g ound could hen be e e ed oas
bio-g aphical. InLi e Dea h De ida ies op oblema ize his seemingly unp ob-
lema ic sphe e o mode n na u al sciences, “ his g aphics o li e, his non-phone ic
w i ing ha [Geo ges Canguilhem and F ançois Jacob] claim obe ‘wi hou w i ing’
and ha hey a e eady o ein es wi h all he alues linked ologos ini s mos
endu ing Pla onic-A is o elian-Hegelian adi ion” ([2019] 2020, 23]). The e m
“au o” does no necessa ily e e o ha which is mine, i.e. “singula ”, as his chance
113
How many dea hs? Au o-bio-g aphy as dea h-w i ing
o singula i y is gua an eed exclusi ely byi s g ounding in epea abili y (hence:
uni e sali y), ha which can beiden i ied, looked back upon, u ned in o signs:
“Theiden i y o  hesame […] known as heau o, is gene a ed by he e y hing
– i e abili y, hepowe - o-be- epea ed – which p ohibi s i s s abili y and au ono-
my” (Smi h 1995, 100). The“p ohibi ion” Smi h men ions is no so much anac ion
o legal au ho i y (like ha o aposi i e “na u al law”). Ra he , heguiding p inciple
ecognized he e bySmi h is hedi e en ial s uc u e o  heau o. I s imp isonmen
wi hin helinguis ic s uc u es employed leads o he eeling o en apmen in his
di e en ial s uc u e ha does no belong olanguage (as ha which is “ou side”) bu
spli ing he “I” as ha which gi es i i s/his/he iden i y. He e s ems heu ge (and
possibili y) one e s op na a ing while simul aneously deepening hegap be ween
he ime o na a ing and hena a ed ime ( heexample o T is am Shandy is illus-
a i e he e). The“I”, as heau ho o “mysel ” iscon on ed wi h hep o isionali y
o  heexis ing linguis ic cons uc ion, amoun ing o hep o isionali y o i s “li e”,
i s inabili y o ind i s dwelling wi hin heal eady exis ing na a i e and linguis ic
s uc u es. “I”is hen no obe iden i ied wi h “ipsei y”, as De ida clea ly s a es, “bu
in heuniqueness o singula i y o aga he ing oge he o i s di e ence oi sel ”
(De ida [1996] 1998, 68). Ra he han p ohibi ing, i e abili y gua an ees iden i y
as ha which is changing (because i always mani es s i sel anew h ough singula
e en s: ha which canno becalcula ed), opened owa ds hepas ho izon o mem-
o y and he u u e ho izon o dea h, “De ida pe cei es au obiog aphy as ap ac ice
aligned wi h w i ing indi é ance, heno -he e and no -now. […] Simul aneously
gazing obo h pas and u u e, De ida loca es heau obiog aphe ina empo al
en anglemen ha suspends hebo de s be ween li e and dea h” (E gin 2017, 347).
Thep oblem is, o cou se, wi h Meliz E gin using he isual me apho o “gazing”,
as human ision is unidi ec ional (unlike hea ing). Inme apho ical e ms, Iwould
say ha he“p esence” o human being, as modelled byau obiog aphical p ac ice, is
leaning ou owa ds hepas and he u u e.
Mo e p oduc i e han iden i ying he “uni e sali y” o  hehuman si ua ion wi h
hebio-g aphy o DNA coding would beanalyzing he(biological) body in ol ed
inw i ing, hebody in es ed in he ex , and hebody as ama e ial ca ie o li e.
Tha is why De ida showed such ap o ound in e es inAn onin A aud, who inhis
poe y, ic ion, dia ies, and le e s, as well as inhis “ heo e ical” wo k (TheThea e
and i s Double, 1938) was es ing p ecisely his co po eal sphe e o iden i y ini s
ela ion o“li e” and “language” (see De ida [1969] 1978). De ida “s ips naked”
heco po eal dimension om adi e en poin o  iew inThe Animal Tha The e o e
IAm. Wha especially should no bea oided is he“a ec i e” body oge he wi h
heques ion o wha he(physiological) a ec is able o ell. A hu W.F ank s a es
ha “ hebody is no mu e, bu i is ina icula e; i does no use speech, ye bege si ”
(1995, 27). Inau obiog aphies hemos acu e memo ies (i  hey a e no ep essed)
a e o en hose ha a e ina icula e and/o ina iculable because hey a e connec ed
oaspeci ic, o en auma ic si ua ion, whe e heonly a ailable esponse migh be
hep ima ily bodily a ec ha is no , as De ida sugges s, necessa ily unde s and-
able o meaning ul:

114 MIROSLAV KOTÁSEK
We would need o make new in oads in o hinking conce ning hebody […] ino de
oone day come close owha makes us emble o wha makes us c y, o ha cause which
is no he inal cause ha can becalled God o dea h […]. Wha does hebody mean osay
by embling o c ying, p esuming one can speak he e o  hebody, o o saying, o mean-
ing, and o  he o ic? ([1992] 1995, 55)
My mu e body alks o me, e.g. h ough “bu e lies inmy s omach”, as i is punc-
u ed by hea ec i e “punc um”. Ye hea ec is no necessa ily an“e ec ” o wha
has happened, no necessa ily a “ e-ac ion”, i  can also be o ien ed owa ds ha
which is abou ohappen inhowe e dis an a u u e. The embling De ida alks
abou does no ha e obe connec ed oapa icula e en in heau obiog aphe ’s li e
( o he“sou ce” o “o igin” o  hea ec ). Thea ec can speak also o  ha which is no
ye he e, inan icipa ion o  he u u e De ida calls l’a eni (as opposed ole u u ):
ha which a i es unannounced, canno be calcula ed, o p edic ed using causali y,
he u u e which bea s wi ness o heabsence o any s uc u e o  he u u e. Ano he
name i can me onymically bea is, o cou se, “dea h”:
We emble in ha s ange epe i ion ha ies ani e u able pas (ashock has been el ,
a auma ism has al eady a ec ed us) oa u u e ha canno bean icipa ed; an icipa ed
bu unp edic able; app ehended, bu , and his is why he e is a u u e, app ehended p e-
cisely as un o eseeable, unp edic able; app oached as unapp oachable. (54)
Re u ning o he pa adox o he ( epea able) so e eign au o, and o  cou se
o hemu eness, and inaccessibili y o  he(biological, physiological body): au obiog-
aphy p omises o u n his uni e sali y in o singula i y by heusage o (byp inciple
epea able, gene al, di e en ial) signs o alinguis ic code. De ida desc ibes hepa -
adox common oall g aphic signs illus a i ely:
To be a ma k and o ma k i s ma king e ec , ama k mus becapable o being iden i ied,
ecognized as hesame, being p ecisely e-ma kable o m one con ex oano he . I mus
becapable o being epea ed, e-ma ked ini s essen ial ai as hesame. […] Theideal i -
e abili y ha o ms hes uc u e o all ma ks is ha which undoub edly allows hem obe
eleased om any con ex , obe eed om all de e mined bonds oi s o igin, i s meaning,
o i s e e en . (1984, 16)
In au obiog aphy (and in e e yday discou se as well) Ican speak o w i e abou
wha happened ome in hepas , Ican commen on hep esen and e en specu-
la e abou he u u e o “in en ” i . I  he e was only posi i e meaning inlanguage
and i ha posi i e meaning was wha ge s epea ed, hen ou li es would no be
dis inguishable. Ra he , so ha language can wo k as heca ie o indi idualized
meaning, he e a e always al eady ce ain o ms o nega i i y a play. The e is li le
posi i e inlanguage, heposi i e a ises despi e language and no hanks oi . Saying
“I” does no amoun oancho ing my whole being a ound a i m cen e o cogni ion.
The e is p obably no e en an“I” be o e i ge s p onounced: i is heac o u e ing
(inau obiog aphy, a apsychoanaly ic si ing, inasoliloquy) ha makes heabsen
(in isible, unhea d) language simul aneously wi h heabsen “I”appa en h ough
pa ole, h ough anu e ance. Thew i en u e ance and heusage o  oice isibly/
audibly ma ks language (langage) as absen , as nega i e:
115
How many dea hs? Au o-bio-g aphy as dea h-w i ing
The Voice, as he sup eme shi e ha allows us og asp he aking place o language, ap-
pea s hus as henega i e g ound onwhich all on ology es s, heo igina y nega i i y sus-
aining e e y nega ion. Fo his eason, hedisclosu e o  hedimension o being is always
al eady h ea ened bynulli y: […] he ield o meaning o being is o iginally disclosed only
in hepu ely nega i e a icula ion o aVoice. (Agamben [1982] 2006, 36)
The s uc u e o he p esen in which Iuse my oice is no anunp oblema ic (phe-
nomenological) “now”, bu i is di e en ially and de e en ially cons i u ed by hepas
and he u u e. I is g ounded in henulli y Gio gio Agamben e e s o( ha gua an-
ees i e abili y). I is no ha Ican speak despi e his no hingness, i is his nulli y ha
allows me ospeak. As hemu e body eaches me olis en onon-linguis ic signs, as
Ispeak hanks o heabsence o  helanguage, my p esen sel is a ec ed byi s u u e
dea h ha ma ks i “ali e”.
In au obiog aphy “ he Voice” is mos p ominen ly ep esen ed by hep onoun“I”.
Thea icula ion o  hep onominal shi e no only g ounds meaning in hep esen
(pe o ms he“p esence” o meaning), bu i is also hespace- ime whe e henega-
i i y o language makes i sel audible/ isible: anyone can e e ohimsel o he sel
h ough hepe sonal p onoun“I”, ye by he e y u e ance his possibili y anishes:
I o ce helinguis ic means. I iola e hem omean only “me”:
he “I” is always posed au obiog aphically. I  e e s oi sel . […] Theau o-biog aphical
does no ha e ooccu oan“I,” li ing o dead, ha would come ospeak o i sel . Theau-
o-bio-g aphical de i es om he ac ha hesimple ins ance o  he“I” o o  heau os can
beposed as such only o heex en ha i is asign o li e, o li e inp esence, hemani es-
a ion o li e inp esence, e en i hewha , o who, male o emale, ha he eby gi es his
sign o li e inds i sel oha e passed o e o heside o dea h. (De ida [2006] 2008, 56)
I can be obse ed ha he ela ionship Blancho asc ibed o he“w i e ” and
“wo k” mi o s he ela ion be ween“I” and i s “u e ance”. I  his ela ion condi ions
he“au obiog aphical”, as De ida sugges s, i means ha i canno be o go en, un-
like ina ic ional na a i e, hus p esen ing ap oblem as oi s “li e a y” s a us. Ye
hings do no s op he e. I Ipoin my u e ance a  hewo ld, a objec s in hewo ld,
ano he side o  his nega ing powe o language mani es s i sel . Blancho s a es inhis
“Li e a u e and heRigh oDea h”:
when I say “This woman,” eal dea h has been announced and is al eady p esen inmy
language; my language means ha his pe son, who is he e igh now, can bede ached
om he sel , emo ed om he exis ence and he p esence, and suddenly plunged in o
no hingness inwhich he e is no exis ence o p esence; […] ha de e ed assassina ion
which […] my language is. ([1948] 1995b, 323)
This is he p ice ha ough o be paid o he “ideal i e abili y” o linguis ic signs and
he eason De ida is so a ac ed oBlancho . Blancho asc ibes ablood-sucking,
ampi e-like quali y owo ds. They seem op o ide us wi h aphan asm o “e e nal
li e”, o p o iding hepowe ospeak oina icula e mu e objec s, bu hey do i
a  hecos o deadening heobjec s hey aim hei powe a : “Thewo d gi es me
hebeing, bu i gi es i ome dep i ed o being. Thewo d is heabsence o  ha
being, i s no hingness” (322). I is he e, in heseemingly unp oblema ic e e yday
116 MIROSLAV KOTÁSEK
language use, ha hee hical dimension o being opens up. Inau obiog aphy, e-
ga ding my a emp ou e my “being”, my “li e”, heconsequences a e simila :
in me, he powe o speak is also linked o my absence om being. Isay my name, and i is
as hough Iwe e chan ing my own di ge: Isepa a e mysel om mysel , Iam no longe my
p esence o my eali y, bu anobjec i e, impe sonal p esence, hep esence o my name,
which goes beyond me and whose s onelike immobili y pe o ms hesame unc ion o
me as a ombs one weighing on he oid. When Ispeak, Ideny heexis ence o wha Iam
saying, bu Ialso deny heexis ence o  hepe son who is saying i . (324)
In au obiog aphy I make mysel asepulche inside my Sel , inexac ly hemanne
F eud alks abou hewo k o mou ning. Imake mysel in o aninanima e objec ha
can be desc ibed and an asized abou , so ha Ican see mysel and alk abou mysel
as abou “ ha man”. Iam no ac ing as anunde s anding, compassiona e subjec e en
hough Ikilled, bu ied, and mo i ied mysel , bu hanks o ha e y ac . I is in his
sense ha Iunde s and Joseph K onick’s ema k ha “E e y ime ‘I’begin ow i e
( heli e o ) mysel , dea h in e poses. E e y au obiog aphy is anallego y o  hew i -
e ’s dea h, anau obio hana og aphy” (2000, 1014). The undamen al spli (which is
no only “au obiog aphical”, bu also “psychoanaly ic”) be ween hena a ing/ elling
“I”and heobjec i ied, immobile “I”as ap o agonis o “my” s o y in oduces in o my
unde s anding hespli be ween henon- ic ional (me elling hes o y) and he ic-
ional (me as heone being na a ed). Au obiog aphy ins uc s me abou hepsycho-
logical basis o my unde s anding o “ ic ion”. I makes i  isible inasel - e e en ial,
specula manne , whe e “ hepossibili y o  ic ion has s uc u ed – bu wi h a ac u e
– wha is called expe ience. This cons i u ing s uc u e is des uc u ing ac u e. I is
hecondi ion ha is common oli e a u e and non-li e a u e, o hepassion o li e -
a u e as well as o his passion ou cou owhich li e a u e canno no e e . He e,
inany case, hebo de be ween li e a u e and i s o he becomes undecidable” (De -
ida [1996] 2000, 92). And again, i is also he e, in his p ima ily na cissis ic iden-
i ica ion, whe e hee hical dimension o  he“o he ” akes i s o m, opening hedi-
mensions o  esponsibili y owa ds heo he and owa ds s o ies. And i , as De ida
claims, his is hesphe e o  heundecidabili y be ween li e a u e and non-li e a u e,
hen i is also he e whe e hepoli ical dimension o  esponsibili y and deb ins iga ed
by hepossibili y o“say any hing” opens:
A pa o us is wounded and i is wi h ou sel es ha we a e con e sing in hewo k
o mou ning and o E inne ung. E en i his me onymy o  heo he inou sel es al eady
cons i u ed he u h and hepossibili y o ou ela ion o heli ing o he , dea h b ings
i ou in o mo e abundan ligh . […] Thena cissis ic wound enla ges in ini ely o wan
o being able obe na cissis ic any longe , o no longe e en inding appeasemen in ha
E inne ung we call hewo k o mou ning. Beyond in e nalizing memo y, i is hen neces-
sa y o hink, which is ano he way o  emembe ing. (De ida [1987] 2007b, 9)
In au obiog aphy I u n he opposi ions on hei heads: Ican make “mysel ” in o
asubjec by u ning “mysel ” in o anobjec obe s udied, desc ibed, analyzed, and
dissec ed. Based on his e e sal Ican emembe ( hose pas , dead memo ies), Ican
hink, Ican w i e o( e)in en los o non-exis ing memo ies ( o him/i ). This ai ,
his ace, his b each announces inme heimpossibili y o he ace o w i ing obe
117
How many dea hs? Au o-bio-g aphy as dea h-w i ing
posi i e: i announces heimpossibili y o  ace, o w i ing. And so, heau obiog aph-
ical ac ( hana og aphical ac ) becomes hemodel o “unde s anding” sel . Bybu y-
ing mysel , I ee mysel om genealogy: “Li e, as s uc u ally indis inguishable om
dea h, may be conside ed ou side o genealogy and gene a ion. Ino he wo ds, li e
dea h can pass wi hou ela ion, wi hou ap io i submission oalaw o genealogical
belonging” (Smi h 1995, 150). Li e becomes s ill li e.
Ye wha happens o his “s ill li e”, his pic u e, his memo y o me? Is he e an-
o he dea h ela ing o his ma e iali y o “mediali y” o  he “I”? De ida does no
hesi a e: “Ilea e apiece o pape behind, Igo away, Idie: i is impossible oescape
his s uc u e, i is heunchanging o m o my li e. Each ime Ile some hing go, each
ime some ace lea es me, ‘p oceeds’ om me, unable obe eapp op ia ed, Ili e my
dea h inw i ing” (2007a, 32–33). I is his dea h inw i ing, his o e ing ha allows
heDe idean ace/ ace o De ida/De ida’s ace o“li e on”, o“su i e”. This
answe is made possible byunde s anding w i ing as alinguis ic pe o ma i e ac
(pe o ming simul aneously he“sel ” and “ u h”) esul ing inasingula ex , ex
conside ed as ane en . Ido no hink we can s ess his way o looking a w i ing (as
sugges ed by Culle 2008) wi hou placing i wi hin hemo e gene al logic o media.
P eceding hepassage Iha e jus quo ed you can ead: “A  hemomen Ilea e ‘my’
book […] Ibecome, appea ing-disappea ing, like ha uneducable spec e who will
ha e ne e lea ned how oli e. The ace Ilea e signi ies a once my dea h, ei he
ocome o al eady come upon me, and hehope ha his ace su i es me” (De ida
2007a, 32). De ida accep s hespec al logic o e ed ohim by hemedium i sel ,
hespec al logic ha is no exclusi e ow i ing o li e a u e bu applies omemo y
media ingene al.
Thespec al logic is de ac o adecons uc i e logic. I is in heelemen o haun ing ha
decons uc ion inds heplace mos hospi able oi , a  hehea o  heli ing p esen ,
in hequickes hea bea o  hephilosophical. Like hewo k o mou ning, inasense,
which p oduces spec ali y, and like all wo k p oduces spec ali y. (De ida and S iegle
[1996] 2002, 117)
A “s ill li e” can be hung inagalle y, placed inabank sa e, o hung onawall
in hein e io o in heex e io . Ino he wo ds, i  equi es aplace o“s o e” i and
make i accessible (in his espec “bank sa e” is no hemos app op ia e place).
Thep oblem o  hea chi e, i s accessibili y and changes ins iga ed bydigi iza ion and
digi aliza ion o a chi ed con en ans o m hedu a ion and ele ance o  he“su -
i ing ace”:
The echnical s uc u e o  hea chi ing a chi e also de e mines hes uc u e o  hea -
chi able con en e en ini s e y coming in o exis ence and ini s ela ionship o he u u e.
Thea chi iza ion p oduces as much as i  eco ds hee en . This is also ou poli ical expe-
ience o  heso-called news media. (De ida [1995] 1996, 17)
Today he e is he possibili y o eco d, simul aneously s eam, and s o e “e e y-
hing” down o hemos edious de ails. And he e hep oblem a ises: i no hing
can be o go en, as i is s o ed jus aclick away, hen no hing mus be emem-
be ed. The heo e ical possibili y o eco d e e y hing is, o cou se, p oblema ic,